I always have felt like blaming cars, of all things, misses the bigger picture. 1 crude oil shipping vessel produces more pollution than the entirety of cars in America will for a year. Cars are one of the things that actually empowers individuals to live their individualized lives. Hell, some people live in their cars/rv/campers and it allows people to escape the rigors of daily life.
I agree we should take aim at making them more environmentally friendly, and take a harder focus on replacing plastic components with metal and/or other recyclable alternatives. If we could sequester carbon into them somehow that would be even better; but things like carbon fiber require nasty epoxies that are difficult to break down again once they need to be recycled.
When you talk about “pollution” (compared to a shipping vessel) you are only talking about greenhouse gas emissions. This is the exact fallacy that the comic is addressing.
Localised particulate matter pollution will have a much more severe and direct impact on human health. Whether widespread individual car ownership is worth the cancer and microplastic pollution in our bodies is certainly still open for debate. However, this “environmentally friendly car” that you are imagining is a pipe dream.
Humans living fulfilling, individualised lives has been happening for more than just the last century.
Cargo ships also emit a shit ton of particulate, NOx, and SO2 since they aren’t required to have the same emissions controls as on road vehicles. It’s a serious problem for both climate change and immediate health impacts.
But those cargo ships exist whether we’re also driving a bunch of cars or not. It’s just totally orthogonal.
If anything, switching to heavy EVs will increase the amount of pollution caused by cargo ships. Bringing up cargo ships makes no sense as a defense of EVs
Plus, short of putting nuclear reactors on every ship, they can only really function on oil based fuels. Nothing compares in terms of energy density. If you somehow managed to put god knows how many battery packs on a ship without it sinking, it would probably take months to charge and suck tens of megawatts from the grid whilst doing it.
But this argument basically implies that we should gut the majority of people’s benefit because of a minority’s inconvenience. Certainly we should accommodate the minority who can’t, especially if it means living a fulfilling life, but not at the expense of everyone else.
Making life easier for those who can’t or doesn’t want to drive detracts nothing from those who can. In fact it is beneficial for those who want to drive to have denser cities, and better public transport. It means safer streets, less traffic and lower insurance premiums. Yours is a false dichotomy.
You lack reading comprehension. I did not give you a false dichotomy, because a false dichotomy requires that I present to you two options, with the stipulation that you can only choose one or the other. Nowhere in my previous post did I do any such thing.
I merely reiterated what I understood your stance to be, and offered an alternative; which would be not unduly hampering other people’s experience because of a minority.
You’re so focused on being “right”, that you’ve lost sight of the actual discussion in an effort to portray my argument as some sort of argumentative fallacy. Which ironically enough, is in itself, another fallacy – called the fallacy fallacy.
You’re not arguing with the original poster. Someone definitely lacks reading comprehension skills and is irrationally fixated on proving themselves right at all times, but it ain’t me. You created a straw men and presented it at “either this or that”, false dichotomy. Again, supporting those who don’t want or can’t drive doesn’t infringe upon the rights of car owners and those who do want to drive. This is not an oppressor-oprressed dynamic. That’s classic victimization. We can help and accommodate to the needs of minorities without having to disregard the needs of the majority. At least learn your moral arguments right.
I find the language you use interesting. Those who take their living room with them to save a few minutes “benefit”, whereas those who have to breathe in the fumes and be victims of traffic violence are “inconvenienced”.
Cars are one of the things that actually empowers individuals to live their individualized lives.
So if I’m forced to live in my car or forced to use it because I would otherwise most likely be run over if I was riding a bike or the distance is too far for walking and I can’t catch public transit to my destination, am I empowered? Having a choice of how I want to get to places is empowering, not “oh I’ll guess I’ll go in my car”. I can see the argument for living in a car, but I also know that people sometimes make that choice because it is literally cheaper to buy and re-do a car so they can live in it rather than renting in some areas.
Cars are, and honestly should be treated as, a luxury good. It’s fun to drive around some routes form time-to-time, but I’d much rather bike or ride public transit to places rather than drive.
This is one of the main cores behind the anti car and fifteen minutes city concepts. I’m currently facing the choice. Should I buy a car? Because, though I currently move and live without, using a car for commute would be a net personal gain. Biking is not an option, there is no infrastructure nor protections for moving on a bicycle in my city. I have to commute 50km each way, my job is not possible to be done from home, moving closer to work is financially prohibitive. Any new job would be near the same exact geographic area. A car would reclaim almost 3 hours of my day and multiply my options for leisure 10 fold for relatively cheaper. I hate to have to face that dilemma.
If a significant amount of people live in their cars, it means that the housing market and the wages are seriously out of whack, and the government has not been doing their job for the last decades.
The position of most people in this community is usually “Cars should cease to be the primary means of transportation for North Americans as soon as possible”. There are cases where cars and trucks are the only logical option, like rural communities, but in cities we should be aggressively against cars as a primary means of transportation. Nothing solves the the problems cars cause like replacing them with a train or bus or cycling
Even living in a European city with good bike and public transit options, I run into cases where a car is the only logical option.
Which is why I rent them a few times and year which basically comes down to sharing a handful of cars between a few hundred neighbours. Every single person having one or multiple cars is insanity, especially when you consider traffic conditions.
Part of the issue here is that if you own a car, it’s often cheaper to take the car than public transport, because most of the car expenses are paid independent of the immediate usage.
Car value deprecation, taxes, maintainance, all of that cost you money no matter whether you drive into town today or use some other means of transport.
I think it would be much better to put all taxes onto the fuel price. If you pay €5 for a litre of fuel, instead of the ~€1.5/l that we are currently paying, it would make more sense to take public transport some times.
I think this is the huge balancing point at which cars rely on. You saw a lot more small cars and less of these huge monster trucks roaming around North America back when gas had hit $5/gallon. Now gas is $3 but accounting for inflation, it’s probably at one of the cheapest points it’s ever been.
Even though I argue many times for cars in these posts, I long for a day when gas is $10/gallon so that these 3-5 ton behemoths aren’t on the road carrying a single person. I’m fine with this causing an artificial limitation on people to pick and choose when they use their personal transportation. Granted, we’ve also seen that this results in the economy slowing down overall as people choose to go fewer places and thus spend less money overall.
The greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions — including carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O), expressed in CO2e — of total shipping (international, domestic and fishing) have increased from 977 million tonnes in 2012 to 1,076 million tonnes in 2018 (9.6% increase).
Whereas in a pdf from the EPA at the bottom of this page says passenger cars and light-duty trucks produced 1,046 million metric tons of CO2 in 2021.
So to recap, all maritime shipping in the world produced only slightly more CO2 than the passenger cars and light trucks only in the United States.
Damn, thanks for the rebuttal – Do you have any other sources that are closer to 2022? Covid REALLY did a fucking number on everything from shipping to travel, both reducing travel and increasing shipping - so I’m concerned that those numbers may be a little different in a post-covid world. Still, very enlightening facts!
I do not. The previous study of its kind from the IMO was from 2014 and looked at the years 2007-2012, so it seems to take a few years for them to be able to put all the information together.
The thing is that the 1 container ship transports a hell of lot more actual cargo from one place to the other than personal cars, which are mostly used for commuting lazy buttchecks back to where they came from in the morning.
I always have felt like blaming cars, of all things, misses the bigger picture.
On the contrary, doing anything other than blaming cars misses the bigger picture that car-dependent development is what drives, directly or indirectly, almost all the pollution except for industry and agriculture:
The emissions of the cars themselves, of course.
The emissions associated with producing all the extra concrete you need to build places to store the cars, as well as wider roads to fit all the traffic. (EDIT: and longer roads, for that matter, because inserting all the space for car storage forces your destinations to be further apart!)
The emissions associated with restrictive low-density zoning codes forcing 90% of the population to live in single-family homes exposed to the environment on all six sides, instead of giving them the freedom to choose to live in denser housing where shared walls increase thermal efficiency.
i feel like you probably didn’t realize what community you are posting in. this is the anti-car community. not the better car community, the anti-car community.
No I realized damn well what community I was posting in. That’s the great thing about intellectual discourse, is the ability to argue a cause based on its merits in order to refine an opinion or idea to its ultimate ends. Without dissenting opinions being allowed, all you do is isolate yourself into an echo chamber where your opinions are never challenged and get ever-more extreme to the point of comedic proportions. You need your ideas challenged so that you can make an educated and refined argument. Additionally, my arguments allow me to be open to correction and I can update my own opinions based on arguments made against my statements as well. I know the internet has taught many people that argument = bad, but true discourse invites other opinions that may not necessarily agree. I, in my propensity to wish for the best in humanity, am of the hopes that I can achieve that here on a platform where I assume that people are slightly more intelligent because they had the foresight to leave the previous platform which has been overrun with anti-intellectualism.
I always have felt like blaming cars, of all things, misses the bigger picture. 1 crude oil shipping vessel produces more pollution than the entirety of cars in America will for a year. Cars are one of the things that actually empowers individuals to live their individualized lives. Hell, some people live in their cars/rv/campers and it allows people to escape the rigors of daily life.
I agree we should take aim at making them more environmentally friendly, and take a harder focus on replacing plastic components with metal and/or other recyclable alternatives. If we could sequester carbon into them somehow that would be even better; but things like carbon fiber require nasty epoxies that are difficult to break down again once they need to be recycled.
When you talk about “pollution” (compared to a shipping vessel) you are only talking about greenhouse gas emissions. This is the exact fallacy that the comic is addressing.
Localised particulate matter pollution will have a much more severe and direct impact on human health. Whether widespread individual car ownership is worth the cancer and microplastic pollution in our bodies is certainly still open for debate. However, this “environmentally friendly car” that you are imagining is a pipe dream.
Humans living fulfilling, individualised lives has been happening for more than just the last century.
Cargo ships also emit a shit ton of particulate, NOx, and SO2 since they aren’t required to have the same emissions controls as on road vehicles. It’s a serious problem for both climate change and immediate health impacts.
But those cargo ships exist whether we’re also driving a bunch of cars or not. It’s just totally orthogonal.
If anything, switching to heavy EVs will increase the amount of pollution caused by cargo ships. Bringing up cargo ships makes no sense as a defense of EVs
Plus, short of putting nuclear reactors on every ship, they can only really function on oil based fuels. Nothing compares in terms of energy density. If you somehow managed to put god knows how many battery packs on a ship without it sinking, it would probably take months to charge and suck tens of megawatts from the grid whilst doing it.
Only those who are able to afford to, and can safely drive a car. Cars, and especially car dependant places, suck for anyone that can’t.
But this argument basically implies that we should gut the majority of people’s benefit because of a minority’s inconvenience. Certainly we should accommodate the minority who can’t, especially if it means living a fulfilling life, but not at the expense of everyone else.
Making life easier for those who can’t or doesn’t want to drive detracts nothing from those who can. In fact it is beneficial for those who want to drive to have denser cities, and better public transport. It means safer streets, less traffic and lower insurance premiums. Yours is a false dichotomy.
You lack reading comprehension. I did not give you a false dichotomy, because a false dichotomy requires that I present to you two options, with the stipulation that you can only choose one or the other. Nowhere in my previous post did I do any such thing.
I merely reiterated what I understood your stance to be, and offered an alternative; which would be not unduly hampering other people’s experience because of a minority.
You’re so focused on being “right”, that you’ve lost sight of the actual discussion in an effort to portray my argument as some sort of argumentative fallacy. Which ironically enough, is in itself, another fallacy – called the fallacy fallacy.
You’re not arguing with the original poster. Someone definitely lacks reading comprehension skills and is irrationally fixated on proving themselves right at all times, but it ain’t me. You created a straw men and presented it at “either this or that”, false dichotomy. Again, supporting those who don’t want or can’t drive doesn’t infringe upon the rights of car owners and those who do want to drive. This is not an oppressor-oprressed dynamic. That’s classic victimization. We can help and accommodate to the needs of minorities without having to disregard the needs of the majority. At least learn your moral arguments right.
I find the language you use interesting. Those who take their living room with them to save a few minutes “benefit”, whereas those who have to breathe in the fumes and be victims of traffic violence are “inconvenienced”.
So if I’m forced to live in my car or forced to use it because I would otherwise most likely be run over if I was riding a bike or the distance is too far for walking and I can’t catch public transit to my destination, am I empowered? Having a choice of how I want to get to places is empowering, not “oh I’ll guess I’ll go in my car”. I can see the argument for living in a car, but I also know that people sometimes make that choice because it is literally cheaper to buy and re-do a car so they can live in it rather than renting in some areas.
Cars are, and honestly should be treated as, a luxury good. It’s fun to drive around some routes form time-to-time, but I’d much rather bike or ride public transit to places rather than drive.
This is one of the main cores behind the anti car and fifteen minutes city concepts. I’m currently facing the choice. Should I buy a car? Because, though I currently move and live without, using a car for commute would be a net personal gain. Biking is not an option, there is no infrastructure nor protections for moving on a bicycle in my city. I have to commute 50km each way, my job is not possible to be done from home, moving closer to work is financially prohibitive. Any new job would be near the same exact geographic area. A car would reclaim almost 3 hours of my day and multiply my options for leisure 10 fold for relatively cheaper. I hate to have to face that dilemma.
If a significant amount of people live in their cars, it means that the housing market and the wages are seriously out of whack, and the government has not been doing their job for the last decades.
The position of most people in this community is usually “Cars should cease to be the primary means of transportation for North Americans as soon as possible”. There are cases where cars and trucks are the only logical option, like rural communities, but in cities we should be aggressively against cars as a primary means of transportation. Nothing solves the the problems cars cause like replacing them with a train or bus or cycling
Even living in a European city with good bike and public transit options, I run into cases where a car is the only logical option.
Which is why I rent them a few times and year which basically comes down to sharing a handful of cars between a few hundred neighbours. Every single person having one or multiple cars is insanity, especially when you consider traffic conditions.
Part of the issue here is that if you own a car, it’s often cheaper to take the car than public transport, because most of the car expenses are paid independent of the immediate usage.
Car value deprecation, taxes, maintainance, all of that cost you money no matter whether you drive into town today or use some other means of transport.
I think it would be much better to put all taxes onto the fuel price. If you pay €5 for a litre of fuel, instead of the ~€1.5/l that we are currently paying, it would make more sense to take public transport some times.
I think this is the huge balancing point at which cars rely on. You saw a lot more small cars and less of these huge monster trucks roaming around North America back when gas had hit $5/gallon. Now gas is $3 but accounting for inflation, it’s probably at one of the cheapest points it’s ever been.
Even though I argue many times for cars in these posts, I long for a day when gas is $10/gallon so that these 3-5 ton behemoths aren’t on the road carrying a single person. I’m fine with this causing an artificial limitation on people to pick and choose when they use their personal transportation. Granted, we’ve also seen that this results in the economy slowing down overall as people choose to go fewer places and thus spend less money overall.
I know you’re being hyperbolic to try and make a point, but according to the International Maritime Organization:
Whereas in a pdf from the EPA at the bottom of this page says passenger cars and light-duty trucks produced 1,046 million metric tons of CO2 in 2021.
So to recap, all maritime shipping in the world produced only slightly more CO2 than the passenger cars and light trucks only in the United States.
Damn, thanks for the rebuttal – Do you have any other sources that are closer to 2022? Covid REALLY did a fucking number on everything from shipping to travel, both reducing travel and increasing shipping - so I’m concerned that those numbers may be a little different in a post-covid world. Still, very enlightening facts!
I do not. The previous study of its kind from the IMO was from 2014 and looked at the years 2007-2012, so it seems to take a few years for them to be able to put all the information together.
The thing is that the 1 container ship transports a hell of lot more actual cargo from one place to the other than personal cars, which are mostly used for commuting lazy buttchecks back to where they came from in the morning.
On the contrary, doing anything other than blaming cars misses the bigger picture that car-dependent development is what drives, directly or indirectly, almost all the pollution except for industry and agriculture:
The emissions of the cars themselves, of course.
The emissions associated with producing all the extra concrete you need to build places to store the cars, as well as wider roads to fit all the traffic. (EDIT: and longer roads, for that matter, because inserting all the space for car storage forces your destinations to be further apart!)
The emissions associated with restrictive low-density zoning codes forcing 90% of the population to live in single-family homes exposed to the environment on all six sides, instead of giving them the freedom to choose to live in denser housing where shared walls increase thermal efficiency.
Don’t forget that even if you have a lawn and a few trees/flowers on your single-family home backyard, that area is mostly dead to nature.
So spreading the suburbs out that much means that much more nature will be destroyed.
You even said it.
Car dependent development. There’s your actual enemy.
Susie buying a car to get to work every day because cycling is not feasible is not your enemy.
Why are you trying to rebut an argument I didn’t make?
“doing anything other than blaming cars”
“Car dependent society”.
Blame the dependent society, not the vehicle within it
i feel like you probably didn’t realize what community you are posting in. this is the anti-car community. not the better car community, the anti-car community.
No I realized damn well what community I was posting in. That’s the great thing about intellectual discourse, is the ability to argue a cause based on its merits in order to refine an opinion or idea to its ultimate ends. Without dissenting opinions being allowed, all you do is isolate yourself into an echo chamber where your opinions are never challenged and get ever-more extreme to the point of comedic proportions. You need your ideas challenged so that you can make an educated and refined argument. Additionally, my arguments allow me to be open to correction and I can update my own opinions based on arguments made against my statements as well. I know the internet has taught many people that argument = bad, but true discourse invites other opinions that may not necessarily agree. I, in my propensity to wish for the best in humanity, am of the hopes that I can achieve that here on a platform where I assume that people are slightly more intelligent because they had the foresight to leave the previous platform which has been overrun with anti-intellectualism.